To be fair, he probably doesn't believe that the problem of homelessness will disappear, only that the homeless people will go somewhere else. It's like saying that if you stop feeding stray cats they'll get jobs and contribute to the local economy or something.

Do you want to pay for a public park only to have it over run with homeless people? There are a lot of alcoholics, drug users, and mentally unstable people among the homeless, to say nothing of sanitation and other issues. The same thing goes for a public library. The point is that when you create a system of free meals, it doesn't just invite the people who are down on their luck and need to scrape by for awhile... It invites people who are perpetually homeless for lots of no so good reasons.

The other side of this is that they're not going away and if they're not in this spot they will be in another. What's the proper solution? Is the homeless shelter/soup kitchen really the best we can do? How can we solve the other problems associated with it if it is without shutting it down?

Do you want to pay for a public park only to have it over run with homeless people? There are a lot of alcoholics, drug users, and mentally unstable people among the homeless, to say nothing of sanitation and other issues. The same thing goes for a public library. The point is that when you create a system of free meals, it doesn't just invite the people who are down on their luck and need to scrape by for awhile... It invites people who are perpetually homeless for lots of no so good reasons.

The other side of this is that they're not going away and if they're not in this spot they will be in another. What's the proper solution? Is the homeless shelter/soup kitchen really the best we can do? How can we solve the other problems associated with it if it is without shutting it down?

Yes - but that's hard. Just shutting it down is easy. And it appeals to certain mentalities. I suspect that Hizzoner may have future political ambitions, and may be "staking out a position".There's no good reason for doing it - most of the people these charities serve are not homeless - most are local retirees and working poor who live in Covina.

Do you want to pay for a public park only to have it over run with homeless people? There are a lot of alcoholics, drug users, and mentally unstable people among the homeless, to say nothing of sanitation and other issues. The same thing goes for a public library. The point is that when you create a system of free meals, it doesn't just invite the people who are down on their luck and need to scrape by for awhile... It invites people who are perpetually homeless for lots of no so good reasons.

The other side of this is that they're not going away and if they're not in this spot they will be in another. What's the proper solution? Is the homeless shelter/soup kitchen really the best we can do? How can we solve the other problems associated with it if it is without shutting it down?

Yes - but that's hard. Just shutting it down is easy. And it appeals to certain mentalities. I suspect that Hizzoner may have future political ambitions, and may be "staking out a position".There's no good reason for doing it - most of the people these charities serve are not homeless - most are local retirees and working poor who live in Covina.

randomjsa:The other side of this is that they're not going away and if they're not in this spot they will be in another. What's the proper solution? Is the homeless shelter/soup kitchen really the best we can do? How can we solve the other problems associated with it if it is without shutting it down?

Ideas:Make them show their ID cards and prove local residency to get fed (hey, if it's good enough for voting!).Have a bunch of wars, cut veteran services and shred the social safety net.Make being homeless in public illegal.

Rashnu:randomjsa: The other side of this is that they're not going away and if they're not in this spot they will be in another. What's the proper solution? Is the homeless shelter/soup kitchen really the best we can do? How can we solve the other problems associated with it if it is without shutting it down?

Ideas:Make them show their ID cards and prove local residency to get fed (hey, if it's good enough for voting!).Have a bunch of wars, cut veteran services and shred the social safety net.Make being homeless in public illegal.

Rashnu:randomjsa: The other side of this is that they're not going away and if they're not in this spot they will be in another. What's the proper solution? Is the homeless shelter/soup kitchen really the best we can do? How can we solve the other problems associated with it if it is without shutting it down?

Ideas:Make them show their ID cards and prove local residency to get fed (hey, if it's good enough for voting!).Have a bunch of wars, cut veteran services and shred the social safety net.Make being homeless in public illegal.

/street bum type homeless people are mostly pretty damn obnoxious

Might I also suggest changing the laws regarding institutional commitment and flooding the streets with mentally ill?

Do you want to pay for a public park only to have it over run with homeless people? There are a lot of alcoholics, drug users, and mentally unstable people among the homeless, to say nothing of sanitation and other issues. The same thing goes for a public library. The point is that when you create a system of free meals, it doesn't just invite the people who are down on their luck and need to scrape by for awhile... It invites people who are perpetually homeless for lots of no so good reasons.

The other side of this is that they're not going away and if they're not in this spot they will be in another. What's the proper solution? Is the homeless shelter/soup kitchen really the best we can do? How can we solve the other problems associated with it if it is without shutting it down?

So we need to shut down the suppliers. Who supplies drugs and alcohol? Who supplies mental disability? These warehouses of colt 45 and schizophrenia need to be closed!

thenewmissus:Rashnu: randomjsa: The other side of this is that they're not going away and if they're not in this spot they will be in another. What's the proper solution? Is the homeless shelter/soup kitchen really the best we can do? How can we solve the other problems associated with it if it is without shutting it down?

Ideas:Make them show their ID cards and prove local residency to get fed (hey, if it's good enough for voting!).Have a bunch of wars, cut veteran services and shred the social safety net.Make being homeless in public illegal.

You're getting ahead of the official schedule. Cancer curing via hospital closure doesn't happened until after E/R's are closed. If the hospital doesn't have an E/R, then the ill/poor without insurance will have to go somewhere else for free emergency medical care. NIMBY.

The difference between SoCal and NorCal has always amazed me. I used to live in SoCal and they're much more conservative, generally speaking, than the rest of us. It's true there are little pockets on both sides of the aisle scattered throughout the state, but how the people in SoCal react to something is vastly different than how we up here in Fogland react to it. Apparently in Smogland, the proper response to working poor, low income elderly and homeless is to destroy the safety net that is not costing local government a damn thing. I thought that's what the conservatives wanted. The government out of the charity business and for private charities and churches to care for the poor. I guess they lied.

Up here in Fogland, we have a place in Sacramento that serves a hot meal every day, several area churches serve hot meals at least once a month, a clothes closet that provides free clothing once a month (you sign in with your social security number or other ID), mental health counseling - a wide variety of services are available here. Of course this attracts people from other areas as well, but that's because they simply do not have services available in their community. The difference between Smogland and Fogland though is I think most of us here are fairly centrist in our ideology and know how to strike that balance between "this is what we would like" and "this is the reality of the situation". The various aid organizations here also have political, business and community support for the most part, three things that a friend of mine who is active with the very poor and homeless says are vital for any charity work in a community.

We don't really have a problem with our homeless folks up here in NorCal. If one of them gets out of line, the others quickly correct them. No one wants to screw things up because a lot of them, homeless or sheltered or just very poor, really do rely very heavily on these charities and feedings in the parks and internet access at the library and free counseling. I'd be interested to know if the Costa Mesa homeless really are a nuisance or if the standard OC stick-up-the-bum attitude is coming out in spades because "I see homeless people!!!". Oh, noes. It must be terrible to have to explain to your children that those poors are gettin' all uppity and going to the library to use the internet and why it shouldn't be tolerated (because they're poor!). I think even most children would know that's beyond jacked up.

/was very poor for a very long time//got better, but still not exactly rich

thenewmissus:Rashnu: randomjsa: The other side of this is that they're not going away and if they're not in this spot they will be in another. What's the proper solution? Is the homeless shelter/soup kitchen really the best we can do? How can we solve the other problems associated with it if it is without shutting it down?

Ideas:Make them show their ID cards and prove local residency to get fed (hey, if it's good enough for voting!).Have a bunch of wars, cut veteran services and shred the social safety net.Make being homeless in public illegal.

theteacher:randomjsa: It's not as simple as some of you like to make it.

Do you want to pay for a public park only to have it over run with homeless people? There are a lot of alcoholics, drug users, and mentally unstable people among the homeless, to say nothing of sanitation and other issues. The same thing goes for a public library. The point is that when you create a system of free meals, it doesn't just invite the people who are down on their luck and need to scrape by for awhile... It invites people who are perpetually homeless for lots of no so good reasons.

The other side of this is that they're not going away and if they're not in this spot they will be in another. What's the proper solution? Is the homeless shelter/soup kitchen really the best we can do? How can we solve the other problems associated with it if it is without shutting it down?

So we need to shut down the suppliers. Who supplies drugs and alcohol? Who supplies mental disability? These warehouses of colt 45 and schizophrenia need to be closed!

It's terrible to laugh, but warehouse full of schizophrenia is pretty damn funny.

Real Women Drink Akvavit:We don't really have a problem with our homeless folks up here in NorCal. If one of them gets out of line, the others quickly correct them. No one wants to screw things up because a lot of them, homeless or sheltered or just very poor, really do rely very heavily on these charities and feedings in the parks and internet access at the library and free counseling. I'd be interested to know if the Costa Mesa homeless really are a nuisance or if the standard OC stick-up-the-bum attitude is coming out in spades because "I see homeless people!!!". Oh, noes. It must be terrible to have to explain to your children that those poors are gettin' all uppity and going to the library to use the internet and why it shouldn't be tolerated (because they're poor!). I think even most children would know that's beyond jacked up.

my impression what that they didn't want smelly homeless people stinking up the library. I don't imagine they are checking bank statements at the door so it's probably not an issue with poor people using the internet.

Do you want to pay for a public park only to have it over run with homeless people? There are a lot of alcoholics, drug users, and mentally unstable people among the homeless, to say nothing of sanitation and other issues. The same thing goes for a public library. The point is that when you create a system of free meals, it doesn't just invite the people who are down on their luck and need to scrape by for awhile... It invites people who are perpetually homeless for lots of no so good reasons.

The other side of this is that they're not going away and if they're not in this spot they will be in another. What's the proper solution? Is the homeless shelter/soup kitchen really the best we can do? How can we solve the other problems associated with it if it is without shutting it down?

Well the slashie part was honest, if unhelpful, editorializing.On a similar note, I once worked near a methadone clinic and wouldn't really have especially wanted to live near it. NIMBY in action. See the ongoing saga and opposition to homeless Tent Cities in Seattle and King County.

Seattle (and other cities) have tried an interesting solution for chronic inebriates in the name of harm reduction. Just give them housing straight off the bat: no rules or having to attend counseling or stop drinking or any strings attached. Turns out to save millions (4) of dollars per year just by doing this for about 75 people as they were ending up in the emergency room and jail so often. Of course many people would seem to prefer we keep wasting that money rather than risk the moral hazard of encouraging people to become and remain schizophrenic street-dwelling alcoholics just for the sweet free housing.

The conservative mantra has long been to eliminate taxpayer funded assistance to the needy, because "private charities can handle it more efficiently." Eric Bever jumps the gun on part two of the plan, which is to outlaw the private charities. In a conservative utopia, all of the homeless will apparently be chased out into the desert to die as municipalities compete to be the most unhospitable to people in need. Nice, huh?

Rashnu:Of course many people would seem to prefer we keep wasting that money rather than risk the moral hazard of encouraging people to become and remain schizophrenic street-dwelling alcoholics just for the sweet free housing.

skullkrusher:Real Women Drink Akvavit: We don't really have a problem with our homeless folks up here in NorCal. If one of them gets out of line, the others quickly correct them. No one wants to screw things up because a lot of them, homeless or sheltered or just very poor, really do rely very heavily on these charities and feedings in the parks and internet access at the library and free counseling. I'd be interested to know if the Costa Mesa homeless really are a nuisance or if the standard OC stick-up-the-bum attitude is coming out in spades because "I see homeless people!!!". Oh, noes. It must be terrible to have to explain to your children that those poors are gettin' all uppity and going to the library to use the internet and why it shouldn't be tolerated (because they're poor!). I think even most children would know that's beyond jacked up.

my impression what that they didn't want smelly homeless people stinking up the library. I don't imagine they are checking bank statements at the door so it's probably not an issue with poor people using the internet.

The only smelly homeless folks we usually have here are those that are newly homeless and haven't figured out where to go for a shower (for free). You can usually tell the homeless by the wire carts with bungee cords holding all of their stuff that they have to drag around with them everywhere more easily than how they smell or are dressed. Unless they're the severely mentally ill type, of course. The Salvation Army in Alkali Flats (a neighborhood just on the edge of downtown Sac) has to track some of those types down, shower 'em off, delouse them and give them new clothing when they get too rank. I can see why no one would want them around, but since there's nowhere to put them (thanks, zombie Reagan!) they're just kind of... there. Most stay in one general area and are very isolationist, but once in a while, one will wander off and cause a bit of panic among the more well groomed, better smelling poor folk. It's very sad. :'-(

whatsupchuck:The conservative mantra has long been to eliminate taxpayer funded assistance to the needy, because "private charities can handle it more efficiently." Eric Bever jumps the gun on part two of the plan, which is to outlaw the private charities. In a conservative utopia, all of the homeless will apparently be chased out into the desert to die as municipalities compete to be the most unhospitable to people in need. Nice, huh?

Yeah well not so much a conservative utopia when most of them are quite in favor of charities. This mayor is an ultra-douche, whose idea of solving the homeless problem is simply to...stop feeding them. Yeah...like they're ants and someone left a sugary drink out on the counter. Maybe he's trolling? If not then the town council/board/whatever need to stand up to him as do teh rest of the people in the community.

whatsupchuck:The conservative mantra has long been to eliminate taxpayer funded assistance to the needy, because "private charities can handle it more efficiently." Eric Bever jumps the gun on part two of the plan, which is to outlaw the private charities. In a conservative utopia, all of the homeless will apparently be chased out into the desert to die as municipalities compete to be the most unhospitable to people in need. Nice, huh?

All charties except one type. Can you guess where they want the poor to go? A long time ago this was one of the core mechanics of spreading and enforcing religion. You get food, and they get a follower that in turn increases their influence. If you leave the fold, they'll cut you off. Unless you find a different group to do business with, you'll become poor. And thus the circle of captivity is complete.

skullkrusher:Rashnu: Of course many people would seem to prefer we keep wasting that money rather than risk the moral hazard of encouraging people to become and remain schizophrenic street-dwelling alcoholics just for the sweet free housing.

rewarding societal uselessness is kinda icky too

Oh, agreed. Just wish we were a little more discerning about who we tar with that instinctive distaste. Maybe cast our net a bit wider and open our eyes to the many instances of un-condemned and unchecked (and proportionately worse in terms of cost) rewarding of societal uselessness beyond the bums, welfare queens, and unintentionally pregnant sluts. But then again I'm not a parasitic lawyer or a financial sector prestidigitator.

Well the slashie part was honest, if unhelpful, editorializing.On a similar note, I once worked near a methadone clinic and wouldn't really have especially wanted to live near it. NIMBY in action. See the ongoing saga and opposition to homeless Tent Cities in Seattle and King County.

Seattle (and other cities) have tried an interesting solution for chronic inebriates in the name of harm reduction. Just give them housing straight off the bat: no rules or having to attend counseling or stop drinking or any strings attached. Turns out to save millions (4) of dollars per year just by doing this for about 75 people as they were ending up in the emergency room and jail so often. Of course many people would seem to prefer we keep wasting that money rather than risk the moral hazard of encouraging people to become and remain schizophrenic street-dwelling alcoholics just for the sweet free housing.

I'm not surprised that solution in Seattle works, That kind of "preventative" solution is both less costly and more effective. The problem, and not just in America, but Canada too, is that the whole culture is based on "it's all good, until it isn't", then treat the hell out of the symptoms. (See also financial industry, war on drugs, health care (more there than here, but here too), etc.) Rather than that ounce of prevention along the way, the pound of cure at the end. I'm not sure either country is ready for that kind of fundamental shift in attitude.

Rashnu:skullkrusher: Rashnu: Of course many people would seem to prefer we keep wasting that money rather than risk the moral hazard of encouraging people to become and remain schizophrenic street-dwelling alcoholics just for the sweet free housing.

rewarding societal uselessness is kinda icky too

Oh, agreed. Just wish we were a little more discerning about who we tar with that instinctive distaste. Maybe cast our net a bit wider and open our eyes to the many instances of un-condemned and unchecked (and proportionately worse in terms of cost) rewarding of societal uselessness beyond the bums, welfare queens, and unintentionally pregnant sluts. But then again I'm not a parasitic lawyer or a financial sector prestidigitator.

I don't see the connection between "parasitic" lawyers or financial workers and giving houses to people because they're addicts

skullkrusher:I don't see the connection between "parasitic" lawyers or financial workers and giving houses to people because they're addicts

Just a general comment on the fact that our moral outrage at the rewarding of societal uselessness is so selective when there's so much of it going around. The analogy does break down though when it comes to dealing with the perpetrators of things like regulatory capture and gaming of the legal and financial systems. Not sure what the harm reduction strategy would be there. Make them go live in Somalia?